A Horam housing development has been prevented from moving ahead as a result of concerns about Southern Water’s sewer network.
A planning inspector has dismissed an appeal connected with plans to build 38 homes at the Old Orchard House site in Horebeech Lane.
The scheme, from developer Chailey Homes Limited, secured outline planning permission at appeal in 2022. An inspector at the time imposed a series of conditions, including one which required an acceptable foul drainage scheme to be in place before any other ground works take place on the site.
The developer sought permission to discharge this condition last year, but Wealden District Council declined to do so as a result of concerns surrounding the state of the sewerage network. This decision was the subject of the appeal.
The dispute centres on advice provided by Southern Water.
In its response to the original outline application, Southern Water had said the new homes could potentially lead to an increased risk of foul flooding, unless its sewer network was reinforced. This advice had been part of the motivation behind the inspector imposing the condition at the original appeal.
But, during the condition discharge process, the water company later said the new homes could be added to its network without any reinforcement works taking place. The company said this was because the new connections would have a “negligible” impact on its network and provide improvements in the form of a drainage scheme.
Wealden District Council said this view did “not bear scrutiny”, however, pointing to evidence of sewer storm overflows being discharged into local watercourses.
In a decision at the time, a Wealden planning spokesman said: “The condition discharge process has confirmed a problem with the local drainage network. Southern Water has not been able to explain why adding to the network would not exacerbate that problem.
“Allowing full discharge of [the condition] without requiring mitigation (or network reinforcement) cannot be in the public interest. There is evidence of local pollution to streams and watercourses, coupled with the flooding of local houses from deficient local infrastructure.”
In their decision notice, the inspector notes how Southern Water had taken the view that the new connections would have no impact on the volume or frequency of overflows. In taking this view, the inspector said, the company had attributed its discharges to rainwater, rather than housing growth, and had argued the solution to the problem was to prevent rainwater getting into the sewer network.
The inspector cast doubt on this view.
In their decision notice, the inspector said: “While this proposal would result in proportionally limited increases in inputs into the system, it seems illogical that additional inputs would have no consequence to outflows of foul water when the system is overwhelmed by rainfall.
“Southern Water’s clarifying correspondence does not dispute there are outflows above those permitted and does not dispel the council’s concerns that the additional dwellings would worsen the situation. Therefore, I give Southern Water’s explanation on this matter limited weight.”
The inspector added: “For the reasons set out above, it has not been demonstrated the proposed scheme would ensure satisfactory drainage with particular reference to pollution.”
While they found in favour of the council’s decision, the inspector also found that the council had acted “unreasonably” to some degree and ordered it to pay a partial award of costs.
This award of costs was related to arguments around the ecological impact of the development.
According to the inspector, the council had asserted the sewerage concerns associated with the site would have an adverse effect upon three Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and the Pevensey Levels Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
This view had not been shared by Natural England, the statutory consultee on planning applications which may impact the natural environment. The council had argued that Natural England’s view was “unsound” in this case, as it was based upon the advice from Southern Water.
While the inspector had shared concerns around Southern Water’s advice, they also criticised the council for not providing specialist evidence to back up this element of its concerns.
The inspector said: “I can come to no other view than that the council has made vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about a proposal’s impact unsupported by objective analysis.
“This is unreasonable behaviour and has resulted in unnecessary and wasted expense in the appeal process for the appellant. Therefore, a partial award of costs is justified.”
For further information on the proposals see application reference WD/2021/2356/MAO on the Wealden District Council website.
